honestly most of the open source routers are 100bt and .11g. linux 802.11n support is pretty weak, and most of the chipsets that have gigabit ethernet onboard are not supported by linux. most of the offerings, be it netgear linksys or buffallo, are pretty closely in line. there's really only 4-5 different chipsets, most of the difference is packaging. every now and then you'll have exceptional routers that'll have a usb port. NAS's that run linux are viable if you are interested in hooking up a disk drive.
"open source support" is one thing, but as I tried to state in the original post, "open source hardware documentation" is really the key element. its lack of documentation that keeps most modern wifi routers from being linux compatible, not lack of "support".
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
honestly most of the open source routers are 100bt and .11g. linux 802.11n support is pretty weak, and most of the chipsets that have gigabit ethernet onboard are not supported by linux. most of the offerings, be it netgear linksys or buffallo, are pretty closely in line. there's really only 4-5 different chipsets, most of the difference is packaging. every now and then you'll have exceptional routers that'll have a usb port. NAS's that run linux are viable if you are interested in hooking up a disk drive.
"open source support" is one thing, but as I tried to state in the original post, "open source hardware documentation" is really the key element. its lack of documentation that keeps most modern wifi routers from being linux compatible, not lack of "support".